


Sherlock Holmes – man or myth?

by Skogstroll



Category: Sherlock (TV)
Genre: Debate article, Gen, Post Reichenbach
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2012-02-21
Updated: 2012-02-21
Packaged: 2017-10-31 13:18:36
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 749
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/344450
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Skogstroll/pseuds/Skogstroll
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>The debate article found in this morning's paper brings up the discussion about Sherlock Holmes and asks the question as to why these so called "Sherlockians" would like to believe the second hand words and actions of a dead psychopath.</p>
            </blockquote>





	Sherlock Holmes – man or myth?

**Author's Note:**

> No beta on this one. I know the format is clunky but it's a bit easier to read then a simple wall of text. I also hope that people who've read this decide to continue the debate, I'd love to see more articles about this subject.

 

  


By now, all of you most certainly know the names Sherlock Holmes. 

It doesn't matter if you have, or have not read the now famous blog of John Watson, detailing the adventures of him and the consulting detective. Recently, an event called ”The trial of the century!” has been decorating every front page of every newspaper in not only England, but all over the world. 

The trial was against a man calling himself James Moriarty (with charges like breaking into the Tower of London) and Sherlock Holmes served as a key witness.

The event, however, ended in tragedy. 

It was revealed that the culprit, James Moriarty, did in fact not exist at all, and it was all a joke created by none other then Sherlock Holmes himself. The man calling himself James Moriarty was in fact an actor by the name Richard Brook that had been hired by Mr Holmes in an attempt to make those around him believe him to be a genius consulting detective facing off with a master criminal. All the crimes that had been commited had been thought up by Mr Holmes in advance and in an article Richard Brook himself explained how Mr Holmes threatened his life when he'd tried to quit. 

When the police decided to go and arrest the man, Sherlock Holmes stole a gun, kidnapped his flatmate and escaped. He was later found having commited suicide by jumping off the roof of St Barts hospital. 

Now some of you, when you read these words, might pause to protest. 

Out on the streets, there is a movement by fans of John Watson's blog, calling themselves ”Sherlockians” who believe that Richard Brook was a fraud rather then Mr Holmes himself and that James Moriarty did in fact exist (I say did, seeing how Richard Brook was later found on the very roof from where Sherlock Holmes had jumped, shot in the head).

And this is where the debate starts because it's here I stand baffled. Why on earth do people believe that Richard Brook was a fraud? Was he not found innocent in a trial? Surely, there must be a reason as to why this happened (like, for example, Richard Brook confessing everything) – you don't release someone who is guilty. You lock them up.

The words ”innocent until proven guilty” has turned into ”guilty even when proven innocent” by these people. 

Didn't the police, after the trial, become suspicious of Sherlock Holmes himself and decide to arrest him? Did he not resist? Did the man, in fact, not take his own life out of shame over what he had done?

The man was a psychopath! 

There are countless of articles with interviews of acquaintances who all agree – Sherlock Holmes liked to show off as a superior human being and enjoyed looking down on people. Doctors have speculated on his ability to manipulate those around him, making them depend on him even as he insulted them and put them in danger of his own making. 

Seeing that his constant companion John Watson, even after facing all the evidence refuses to see the truth, one can but agree. The man is obviously suffering from some form of Stockholm Syndrome. 

Now, when it comes to these Sherlockians, however, they were not close to this Sherlock Holmes. 

They only knew him from the news media and John Watson's blog. I can understand why people like John Watson refuses to see the truth, but why can't these people? Surely, Sherlock Holmes can't have been so good at manipulating people that he could have done it second hand – through the eyes of his spectator “friend”.

What these Sherlockians are doing is not unique. 

There are people who, when facing rape victims, continue to believe and side with the culprit. Mostly it's due to the fact that these spectators are friends of the culprits and refuse to see any fault in them. But these Sherlockians were not friends of Sherlock Holmes, which makes this interesting in a very tragic way. I thought we were getting past this scenario now because when they're revealed to the general public, they're normally looked down upon. I thought we were living in a world where people were starting to side with the victims. The Sherlockians have not only proved me wrong but have also shown me that the world can be more, if you excuse my language, fucked up then you could possibly imagine. 

And no one is stopping them. 

 

Yours  
A concerned citizen


End file.
